Journal of Behavioral Education

, Volume 3, Issue 4, pp 427–443 | Cite as

Using self-evaluation to improve difficult-to-read handwriting of secondary students

  • William J. Sweeney
  • Erin Salva
  • John O. Cooper
  • Carolyn Talbert-Johnson
Self-Management Series
Accepted:

Abstract

We used delayed multiple-baseline and multiple-probe techniques to assess the effects of self-evaluation training on the legibility of cursive handwriting. Five secondary special education students with difficult-to-read handwriting served as participants. All participants improved the legibility of their handwriting during self-evaluation training. A systematic withdrawal of the training package demonstrated maintenance of treatment effects. For the most part, the students' handwriting remained at least 90% legible to judges following the systematic withdrawal of the self-evaluation training.

Key words

cursive handwriting modeling self-evaluation training self-evaluation self-assessment 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Askov, E., Otto, W., & Askov, W. (1970). A decade of research in handwriting.Journal of Educational Research, 64, 100–112.Google Scholar
  2. Azrin, N. H. (1977). A strategy for applied research: learning based but outcome oriented.American Psychologist, 32, 149–159.Google Scholar
  3. Baer, D. M., & Fowler, S. A. (1984). How should we measure the potential for self-control procedures for generalized educational outcomes? In W. L. Heward, T. E. Heron, D. S. Hill, & J. Trap-Porter (Eds.),Focus on behavior analysis in education (pp. 145–162). Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  4. Bergman, K. E., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1988). Remediating handwriting difficulties with learning disabled students: A review.British Columbia Journal of Special Education, 12, 101–120.Google Scholar
  5. Burgio, L. D., Whitman, T. L., & Johnson, J. A. (1980). A self-instructional package for increasing attending behavior in educable mentally retarded children.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 443–459.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Duval, B. (1985).Evaluation of eleventh grade students' writing supports teaching italic handwriting. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 263 608)Google Scholar
  7. Giordano, G. (1982). CATS exercises: Teaching disabled writers to communicate.Academic Therapy, 18, 233–237.Google Scholar
  8. Heward, W. L. (1978).The delayed multiple-baseline design. Paper presented at the Fourth Annual Convention of the Association for Behavior Analysis, Chicago.Google Scholar
  9. Heward, W. L., Heron, T. E., Gardner, R., & Prayzer, R. (1991). Two strategies for improving students' writing skills. In G. Stoner, M. R. Shinn, & H. M. Walker (Eds.),Interventions for achievement and behavior problems (pp. 379–398). Silver Spring, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  10. Horner, R. D., & Baer, D. M. (1978). Multiple-probe technique: A variation of the multiple-baseline.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 189–196.Google Scholar
  11. Johns, J. C., Trap, J., & Cooper, J. O. (1977). Technical report: Students' self-recording of manuscript letter strokes.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 509–514.Google Scholar
  12. Kosiewicz, M. M., Hallahan, D. P., Lloyd, J., & Graves, A. W. (1982). Effects of self-instruction and self-correction procedures on handwriting performance.Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 5, 71–78.Google Scholar
  13. Manning, M. L. (1986). Responding to renewed emphasis on handwriting.Clearinghouse, 59, 211–213.Google Scholar
  14. McLaughlin, T. F., Mabee, W. S., Byram, B. J., & Reiter, S. M. (1987). Effects of academic positive practice and response cost on writing legibility of behaviorally disordered and learning-disabled junior high school students.Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychotherapy, 4(3), 216–221.Google Scholar
  15. Mercer, C. D., & Mercer, A. R. (1989).Teaching students with learning problems (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.Google Scholar
  16. Miller, A. D., Hall, S. W., & Heward, W. L. (1991).Effects of sequential 1-minute time trials, with and without inter-trial feedback, on regular and special education students' fluency with math facts. Unpublished manuscript, The Ohio State University, Department of Educational Services and Research, Columbus.Google Scholar
  17. Nelli, E. (1982). Penmanship: Neglected tool in teacher preparation.Teacher-Educator, 18, 26–32.Google Scholar
  18. Okyere, B. A., & Heron, T. E. (1991). Use of self-correction to improve spelling in regular education classrooms. In G. Stoner, M. R. Shinn, & H. M. Walker (Eds.),Interventions for achievement and behavior problems (pp. 399–413). Silver Spring, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  19. Peck, M., Askov, E., & Fairchild, S. (1980). Another decade of research in handwriting: Progress and prospects.Journal of Educational Research, 73, 283–298.Google Scholar
  20. Ruedy, L. R. (1983). Handwriting instruction: It can be part of the high school curriculum.Academic 20 Therapy, 18, 421–429.Google Scholar
  21. Rusch, F. R., & Kazdin, A. E. (1981). Toward a methodology of withdrawal designs for assessment of response maintenance.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 131–140.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Sainato, D. M., Strain, P. S., Lefebvre, D., & Rapp, N. (1990). Effects of self-evaluation on the independent work skills of preschool children with disabilities.Exceptional Children, 56, 540–549.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Samuels, S. J. (1979). The method of repeated readings. Reading Teacher, 32, 403–408.Google Scholar
  24. Scott, J., Stoutimore, J., Wolking, W., & Harris, C. (1990). Challenging reading: For students with mild handicaps.Teaching Exceptional Children, 22, 32–35.Google Scholar
  25. Sindelar, P. T., & Stoddard, K. (1991). Teaching reading to mildly disabled students in regular classes. In G. Stoner, M. R. Shinn, & H. M. Walker (Eds.),Interventions for achievement and behavior problems (pp. 333–355). Silver Spring, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  26. Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349–367.Google Scholar
  27. Stowitschek, J. J., Ghezzi, P. M., & Safely, K. N. (1987). “I'd rather do it myself:” Self-evaluation and correction of handwriting.Education and Treatment of Children, 10, 209–224.Google Scholar
  28. Sweeney, W. J., Omness, C. K., Janusz, K. L., & Cooper, J. O. (1992). Adult literacy and Precision Teaching: Repeated readings and see/cover/write practice to improve reading and spelling.The Journal of Precision Teaching, 9, 6–19.Google Scholar
  29. Talbert-Johnson, C., Salva, E., Sweeney, W. J., & Cooper, J. O. (1991). Cursive handwriting: Function rather than topography.Journal of Educational Research, 85, 117–124.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • William J. Sweeney
    • 1
  • Erin Salva
    • 2
  • John O. Cooper
    • 3
  • Carolyn Talbert-Johnson
    • 4
  1. 1.Special Education DepartmentGonzaga UniversitySpokane
  2. 2.Department of Educational Services and ResearchThe Ohio State UniversityColumbus
  3. 3.Department of Educational Services and ResearchThe Ohio State UniversityColumbus
  4. 4.Department of Special EducationThe University of DaytonDayton

Personalised recommendations